Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 147 Colo. 591 - Valley Development Co. v. Weeks

Valley Development Co. v. Weeks’s Empirical Analysis

1961

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
4
states following
July 2023
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 46 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently July 2023 · most notably Malandris v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. (1981), 171 Ind. App. 315 - Charlie Stuart Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Smith (1976)

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 46 state decisions

1301961197019801990200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Fitzsimmons v. Olinger Mortuary Ass'n · State v. Baltimore Transit Co. · Westesen v. Olathe State Bank · McCreery v. Groceteria Co. · Dawsey v. Newton

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “except where a trial court has, under its equitable powers in cases involving easements, determined the conditions under which such easement may be altered where other equities have arisen. In cases of the latter type, the Brown doctrine is applicable.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The rule is well settled that one may not recover damages for an injury which he might by reasonable precautions or exertions have avoided [citations omitted]. What constitutes a ‘reasonable’ precau tion is for the trier of facts to determine upon the evidence.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[Aln owner of a servient tenement has 'no right for his own convenience or profit to change the location of a ditch, or to do anything which will interfere with the vested rights of a dominant tenement therein, without the consent of that party.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.